Allowed

Shatrughna Pandey and Others v. the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2024A482/8146/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) quashed criminal proceedings and stayed the trial in a matrimonial dispute. The court held that with a verified compromise and bleak prospects of conviction, continuing the proceedings served no useful purpose under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; entire criminal proceedings arising from FIR/Case Crime No. 0204/2019 are quashed.

Shatrughna Pandey and Others vs the State of U.P. Thru… — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:62776

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8146 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shatrughna Pandey And Others Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Uma Kant Mishra,Karuna Shankar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Sri Kuldeep Dubey, Advocate, has put in appearance for the private opposite party no. 2 and has filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

¶8

The present application has been filed by the applicants for the following main reliefs:-

¶9

"Therefore, in view of the above noted facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned chargesheet dated 21.04.2020 contained as Annexure No. 3 to this petition alongwith entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 40054/2020, 'State Vs. Shatrughna Pandey & Others' arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. -0204/2019 dated 12.10.2019 U/s 498-A, 323, 504 IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, P.S.-Mahila Thana, District- Lucknow pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ F.T.C. (offences against women), Lucknow.

¶10

It is further prayed that during pendency of the present petition before this Hon'ble Court, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 40054/2020, 'State Vs. Shatrughna Pandey & Others' arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. -0204/2019 dated 12.10.2019 U/s 498-A, 323, 504 IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, P.S.-Mahila Thana, District- Lucknow pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ F.T.C. (offences against women), Lucknow, may kindly be stayed."

¶11

It appears from the record that marriage between the opposite party No. 2/Smt. Archana Pandey (informant) and applicant No. 1 was solemnized on 15.12.2018 as per Hindu Rites and Ritulas and on account of matrimonial discord/dispute, the informant left her matrimonial house in the moth of April, 2019. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged against the applicants registered as FIR/Case Crime No. 0204/2019, dated 12.10.2019, under Sections- 498-A, 323, 504 IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, P.S.-Mahila Thana, District- Lucknow and thereafter the parties instituted several cases in various courts against each other.

¶12

It also appears from the record that in view of compromise entered into between the parties, the Suit No. 631 of 2023 (Shatrughna Pandey vs. Smt. Archana Pandey) was filed under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the same has been decided finally vide order dated 06.11.2023 and in terms of the

¶13

same, the parties are living separately.

¶14

It further appears that after considering the averments related to settlement made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 6614 of 2022 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 23.08.2023 referred the matter to the concerned court/trial court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶15

It further appears from the order of the trial court dated 04.11.2023 annexed at Page No. 81 of this application that the trial court has verified the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶16

Based upon the aforesaid facts as also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various pronouncements, learned counsel for the applicants stated that the instant application be allowed and pending proceedings in issue be quashed.

¶17

Based upon the compromise entered into between the parties, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 also stated that the opposite party No. 2 does not want to continue with the proceeding in issue and the same may be quashed.

¶18

Considering the aforesaid and also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and the nature of dispute/crime, which is essentially matrimonial in nature, and also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013 (4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008 (9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008 (16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019 (5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409 , this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 0204/2019, indicated above in the prayer clause, are hereby quashed.

¶19

Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.

¶20

Order Date :- 11.9.2024/Vinay/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shatrughna Pandey and Others v. the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shatrughna Pandey and Others v. the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kallu Rawat @ Lallan and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Ravindra Kumar Tyagi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Om Prakash and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Anuj Alias Anuj Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Mohd. Faruk Siddiqui @ Mohd. Faruk and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secy. Lko. and Another

Mamta Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and and Another